Cross-examining a witness – right?

Simple questions are the best form of questions to ask in chief or cross. There are exceptions, but they're rare.Given that, it's funny that English and Australian courtrooms often feature long repetitious stanzas of mixed positives and negatives.ExamplesADVOCATE: You went to the storeroom, didn't you?WITNESS: Yes.ADVOCATE: You didn't go anywhere else, did you?WITNESS: No.Listening to …

Continue reading Cross-examining a witness – right?

Implied waiver of the right to silence

Interesting times over in the land of the free and home of the brave, as the US Supreme Court has held in a 5-4 decision that the right to silence must be unambiguously (and probably expressly) asserted.The full text of Berghuis v Thompkins 560 US (including the dissenting judgment) can be found here.In the US, …

Continue reading Implied waiver of the right to silence

DNA evidence and the prosecutor's fallacy

Edit: Although not limited to the US, some of the most glaring applications of the prosecutor's fallacy have occurred there. It's a problem that continues, with the US Supreme Court having just had to decide another case (McDaniel v Brown [2010] USSC No 08-559) where an expert on behalf of the State used the traditional …

Continue reading DNA evidence and the prosecutor's fallacy

DNA evidence and the prosecutor’s fallacy

Edit: Although not limited to the US, some of the most glaring applications of the prosecutor's fallacy have occurred there. It's a problem that continues, with the US Supreme Court having just had to decide another case (McDaniel v Brown [2010] USSC No 08-559) where an expert on behalf of the State used the traditional …

Continue reading DNA evidence and the prosecutor’s fallacy